Hey Napoleon,
Thanks for your reply. I too agree that as far as I can imagine an animal that has not been stunned prior to slaughter would feel a great deal of pain or at least more than it would if stunned.
However the problem with imagining is that doesn't it stand up to argument when Jews/Muslims claim that at least one scientific study show's that it is more humane technique than stunning.
http://www.mustaqim.co.uk/halal.htm
I came across this article on a different website and although useful and reputable to quote it doesn't explain how they concluded their findings. Although one should be able to assume that due to the nature of their organisation they would act according to the best interests of the animals not towards any prejudices they have towards a religion or it's rituals.
Thank you for this source I shall look into "ballooning" more for further information.
I am still supprised there isn't more widely available information on the internet regarding this controverscial issue, most sources I found were in favour of religious slaughter. Not so surprisingly they were nearly if not all from religious site/forums. I had hoped I would find more scienctific studies condemning the practice and explaining exactly why.
Thanks for your reply. I too agree that as far as I can imagine an animal that has not been stunned prior to slaughter would feel a great deal of pain or at least more than it would if stunned.
However the problem with imagining is that doesn't it stand up to argument when Jews/Muslims claim that at least one scientific study show's that it is more humane technique than stunning.
http://www.mustaqim.co.uk/halal.htm
Quote:In the United Kingdom, the government funded but independent advisory body Farm Animal Welfare Council recommended that conventional Ḏabīḥah (along with Kashrut slaughter) without prior stunning be abolished. The FAWC chairwoman of the time, Dr Judy MacArthur Clark, said, "This is a major incision into the animal and to say that it doesn't suffer is quite ridiculous".
I came across this article on a different website and although useful and reputable to quote it doesn't explain how they concluded their findings. Although one should be able to assume that due to the nature of their organisation they would act according to the best interests of the animals not towards any prejudices they have towards a religion or it's rituals.
Quote:Various research papers on cattle slaughter collected by Compassion In World Farming mention that "after the throat is cut, large clots can form at the severed ends of the carotid arteries, leading to occlusion of the wound (or "ballooning" as it is known in the slaughtering trade). Nick Cohen wrote in the New Statesman, "Occlusions slow blood loss from the carotids and delay the decline in blood pressure that prevents the suffering brain from blacking out. In one group of calves, 62.5 per cent suffered from ballooning.
Thank you for this source I shall look into "ballooning" more for further information.
I am still supprised there isn't more widely available information on the internet regarding this controverscial issue, most sources I found were in favour of religious slaughter. Not so surprisingly they were nearly if not all from religious site/forums. I had hoped I would find more scienctific studies condemning the practice and explaining exactly why.
